Summations Only

You don't have any data from the Bible. The Bible passages you refer to are stories. (Just because some believe they are history, doesn't make it so.) I thought you were talking about real deaths. Not deaths in stories. Do we then count all the deaths that are written of in secular stories? I think a few planets have been destroyed in the Star Trek series. I remember some planet wide destruction in Babylon 5. Our planet has supposedly been flooded several times wiping out all life. I don't know if these numbers are right or not and I don't plan on checking, but I think there's record of enough deaths in reality without going to stories.

I didn't look into the reasoning for each war. You can move them around as you wish.The point of my post was that there are plenty of real deaths to tally up without resorting to stories. Necrometrics

quote:

---

Then i checked your source - it was a blog. A fucking blog??? That is your source?

---

As was your source for Bible Deaths, which at least they were looking at deaths mentioned in the Bible and not comparing it to reality.

quote:

---

Many people of your faith believe that the Bible is true. You would have to believe that at least some of it is true or you would not be a christian. I do not think that there are any people that believe that the Star Trek or Babylon 5 universe exists.

---

You are making assumptions about me personally that you have no basis for. Please argue the position and not the person.My position is that there are plenty of real wars and skirmishes with or without religious or atheistic intent to draw from without resorting to the stories of the Bible. You can re-categorize the deaths as you see fit. NecrometricsThe Bible is not an historical book.My position has nothing to do with who has killed more, just didn't want you padding the numbers.

The reason I used that site is because it was the first one I hit and I knew a religious source would annoy you. As I said, my opinion and position is that the Bible is not a realiable source for facts on deaths concerning this topic.It doesn't matter if people believe a story is reality, that doesn't make it reality. If one is looking to compare real deaths, then the Bible is not an appropriate source for facts, unless you want to try and prove the deaths really happened and the numbers are correct.Out of 312,822,000 people the Gallup people questioned 1018 and they didn't ask them if they thought the Bible was fact. This is from the bottom of the page you linked to. In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible LiterallyLiteral and true are not synonyms. Literal and fact are not synonyms. Reading a fictional story literally, doesn't mean one believes the story is real.Literal means using the original, basic meaning of a word. No metaphors or symbolism, etc.If one says it is raining cats and dogs and the listener takes that literally, that doesn't mean it is actually raining cats and dogs. It just means the listener thinks you are saying that it is raining cats and dogs as opposed to water.

quote:

---

The only assumption that I have made is that you, in some way, worship the christian god as mentioned in the New Testemant. The basis of this assumption comes from reading your posts including one where you discussed having your prayers answered.Message 116. But then in other posts you seem to state that you do not believe Message 40. Let me know which it is so I dont have to make any more assumptions.

---

Wow, my first few posts and you still didn't understand them. Stop trying to make assumptions about me personally. Deal with the position I present in the post.Unless you can prove the Bible is a factual source, then it isn't a viable source for this discussion on deaths.

quote:

---

So you are complaining that I am making assumptions an not dealing with your post in reply to a post of mine where I request that you state your position and I deal with your your post?

---

Not complaining just saying you need to stop making assumptions about me personally. Stick to the position presented concerning the topic. I didn't say you didn't address the position I presented concerning the topic.

quote:

---

If you do not believe that the bible is a historical document, then you do not need to respond to the post regarding deaths in the bible.

---

This thread isn't about deaths in the Bible. From your OP it is more about deaths in the real world.I say the Bible isn't a source of real data for deaths and you feel you are justified in using the Bible as a source of data to support your position because others believe it is factual or historical.Although you agree in Message 80 that the Bible is not reality, you still feel justified in using the numbers because some believe it is true. Believing something is factual doesn't make it so. You using the numbers because someone else believes they are real doesn't make them factual either.In this thread the Bible deaths aren't valid additions to the body count.

quote:

---

Person A believes that the bible is a historically accurate document. This means that person A believes that each and every death in the bible acctually occured.

​

Given this information, person A needs to justify their claim regarding the death toll including all of the deaths they belive have occured. This includes the deaths in the bible.

---

No they don't, unless they actually made some claim concerning those deaths.Of course, by your standards then the Christians don't have to justify any of the numbers you provided in Message 11. That's the Jewish Religion. No Christians around back then. How many deaths do you find in the NT? I know, "but they adopted the Jewish God, and believe it so they have to justify the deaths even though it wasn't under Christianity."Some believe Hitler was an Atheist, but my guess is that you won't let them take him off their tally.It's a shame you decided to deal in some fiction instead of sticking with reality.

quote:

---

Why are you trying to drag this thread off topic into christianity bashing? You and the creationists (portillo) are the only ones mentioning christianity. The OP makes NO mention of christianity. Guilty conscience, me thinks...

---

The issue between BFT and myself deals with using death tolls from the OT stories and not sticking to reality.The point of that post: His position is that since some believe the stories to be true, those deaths should be added to the religious tally. If we follow that logic, then since some believe that Hitler was an Atheist, then his death tolls should not be added to the religious tally.Believing something is true doesn't make it fact.

quote:

---

No, but it is nonetheless reasonable to point out problems and inconsistencies in another's position.

---

Come on. Deal with the specific issue presented. I am pointing out an inconsistency in his position.Religious atrocities are those things done by people. If one wants to discuss what God has supposedly done according to the Bible, then the Bible is an appropriate source. The way it is written, this isn't about what gods or any specific god has done.Ancient writers attributing natural disasters, plagues, or illness to a god don't count as religious atrocities.This thread is supposedly comparing human atrocities. The way the OP is written, the claim made by those exuding moral superiority deals with what religious believers have done. IMO, the implication is that religious people are less violent than those who are religion-free. It isn't about what their respective gods have done.If one wants to use the Bible numbers to show what atrocities the religious people have done, then one needs to support that these atrocities actually happened, not just that the believers believe they happened. Just because some believe Hitler is an Atheist doesn't mean that he is and people went out of their way to show that he wasn't an Atheist. So they aren't going to accept that belief that Hitler is an Atheist as true. Accepting what they believe as true to be true in one instance and not in another is inconsistent.In this discussion, comparing fact and fiction is unnecessary and out of place.

quote:

---

If you are going to ban any discussion of fiction from a debate about religion, it's going to be a real short debate.

---

What is it with people and absolutes. No one banned, threatened to ban, or suggested banning anything. My position is simply that pulling numbers from religious stories is not viable in this thread; not any other thread, just this thread. Notice I said this thread. I did not make a universal decree, just my opinion in this thread.My point: If one is going to compare human atrocities in this thread, stick to actual facts; it is unreasonable pull in numbers from questionable ancient stories regardless of what believers believe unless one plans on accepting everything they believe to be true as true for the sake of this discussion.

quote:

---

Wrong. This is not my position. This is you making an incorrect assumption. Remember how quick you are to jump on people when they do that? You are making an assumption that I have informed you is incorrect already.

---

I'm not seeing the difference.

quote:

---

I am not choosing what someone adds to their own tally.

​

I am reminding those that believe that the bible is historically accurate that THEY need to add the deaths to their tally.

---

Still not seeing the difference.

quote:

---

Where in the OP does Butterflytyrant mention the Old Testament, or any particular religion?

---

He didn't. In Message 97, where you joined this issue, I referred to Message 11, which is a list of deaths in the OT.

quote:

---

And if we continue to follow BFT's logic, we would be just as prudent to point out to the morons who claim as such that their position is not based on fact and we would also point out the hypocrisy that their position entails which is exactly BFT's point that you are not grasping. You continue to be a soldier of christianity even though this thread is not at all about christianity specifically, but about religion (I would say faith) in general. You act as though it is being said that christianity alone has commited atrocities in the name of a god.

---

Not really sure what this has to do with my position concerning pulling numbers from stories.

quote:

---

You feel the need to say this to an avowed atheist.....why? You do realize that there is a significant amount of religionists who DO accept the crazy shit in those holy books to be fact, yes? You do realize those same people are, for example, running for the highest office in this country? Those same people are fucking with our education system as well. If it were the liberal half-christians such as yourself and GDR who were the loudest, I highly doubt we would even have this discussion, let alone this website.....

---

Not sure what this has to do with my position either.

quote:

---

But the list of those killed on God's orders is a list of those killed by people. True, it may be a list of fictional people as far as you and I are concerned, but this thread sprang from comments made by Portillo, who presumably doesn't think these lists are fictional. On that basis, it seems reasonable to me that Butterflytyrant should use them. After all, if Portillo has no problem with those (supposedly true) massacres, but does object to "atheist" massacres, then he is engaged in a double standard, no?

---

In Message 62, Portillo states: Biblical atrocities are fictional. Myths and fables.

quote:

---

I agree to an extent and certainly, using these stories does somewhat alter the focus of the thread, but then, it is Butterflytyrant's thread. He should get some leeway over what the thread is about.

---

He isn't altering the focus of the thread. He's just adding those numbers to the death toll.There's plenty of atrocities to compare without resorting to fiction.

quote:

---

Arnold counts up the deaths due to religious wars and genocides, from current history books and the Bible, which is a history book in his opinion and comes to a total of 2 million deaths*

​

Sally counts up the deaths according to the history books and comes up with 1 million deaths*

​

*These figures are imagined

​

Sallys says to Arnold "according to these figures, your claim of moral superiority due to the death tolls of our factions is refuted"

​

Arnold cannot say he is morally superior to Sally because the death toll he puts forward of his religion exceeds Sally's.

---

That isn't the scenario that is playing out here. Quite the opposite.It isn't the religious person using the numbers from his religious book, it is the religion-free person using the numbers.If the religious book contained numbers of deaths caused by religion-free people, would you want those numbers used in the tally?

quote:

---

They do. that is my point. The people who believe that the bible is a factual document do believe that the deaths in the bible did occur. If they make the claim that they are morally superior because atheism has a higher death toll, then they need to put all of the deaths that they believe to have occured on the table.

---

The quote you provided in the OP does not bring up the deaths in the Bible. I know what you point is, I'm disagreeing with it.

quote:

---

You are missing the one important point. The only people who need to add the deaths in the bible to their tally are the people who believe that the Bible is a historically accurate book.

---

Yes I do understand that you feel the death toll should be relative to one's belief that the Bible is a true representation of history. I'm disagreeing that that is a legitimate way to tally atrocities.If we stick to keeping the tally to what the person believes to be true, then that can also impact the opposing list as I pointed out with Hitler. Like I said, what one believes to be true, doesn't make it true.

quote:

---

The issue is not deaths caused by 'religion free' people. It is deaths caused specifically for religious reasons.

---

Then let's look at a few from the Bible list you provided. (I'm not going to hunt for those without verses.)

• Genesis 7 - The one who created the people destroyed the people because he didn't like their behavior. Not a religious reason.
  ​
• Genesis 19:26 - Lot's wife was not turned to salt for a religious reason.
  ​
• Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed for a religious reason.
  ​
• Genesis 38:7-10 - Er not killed for religious reason. His brother also not killed for a religious reason.
  ​
• Exodus 12:29 - The first born of Egypt were not killed for a religious reason. Same for the drowning in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:26-28)
  ​
• Leviticus 10:1 - Nadab and Abihu were not killed for a religious reason. The broke a rule.
  ​
• Judges - Killing the enemy with the help of a god doesn't make it a religious killing.
  ​
• Judges 14:19- Samson didn't slay 30 men for a religious reason.
  ​
• Judges 20:35-48 - The Battle against the Benjamites was to avenge a killing.

Do you see the trend here? In these stories, God is the boss. Disobedience is judged harshly in some cases.Dr. Adequate described in Message 39 the double standard that has appeared concerning these lists.Just because God is in charge in these stories and kills, helps kill, or orders killings doesn't mean the killings were done for a religious reason. These are judgment killings or battles. In these stories, God has that authority, just like the leader of a country. Show me the one's you consider to be killings for a religious reason.ABE: Please note what that religious reason is.Edited by purpledawn, : Warning

quote:

---

So, let's get this straight ... if I were to slay a bunch of people "because God wants them dead", that would be a religious reason, but if God does exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason, it isn't?

---

You aren't in the Bible. We are looking at the stories and the reasons for the deaths according to the stories.Give me the religious reason for the deaths within the stories you quoted.

In Message 39 you pointed out the inconsistencies in labeling atrocities. In Message 122, BFT basically said it is about the reason for the deaths, not the belief or lack there of of those causing the deaths or ordering the deaths. IOW, religion motivated atrocities. Your response of "Because God wanted them dead" as the religious reason for the deaths, doesn't fit.In the flood story, a supreme being killed all but a few people. He brought them into the world and he took them out. There's nothing religious about it. Just because he's a supreme being doesn't make it a killing for religious reasons. According to the story how was this atrocity motivated by religion?